A. The Defendant did not submit the grounds of appeal within the statutory period.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., a fine of 6 million won) of the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant was dissatisfied with the lower judgment and filed an appeal on August 20, 2015. On September 8, 2015, it is apparent in the record that the Defendant did not submit the notification of the receipt of the trial record to the expiration of 20 days from the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial record by this court on September 8, 2015, and the petition of appeal does not contain any indication of the grounds for appeal, nor does there exist

(A) The Defendant submitted reference materials to this court on August 30, 2016, but the photograph submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed to have completed the restoration of the instant mountainous district. Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal ought to be dismissed pursuant to Articles 361-4(1) and 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. It is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the appellate court’s decision is somewhat different from the appellate court

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted at the trial and the lower court did not recognize that the lower court’s sentencing is too unfluent and so it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by comprehensively taking into account all the factors for sentencing as stated by the lower court.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.